Cessna Pilots?
Discussion
I learned to fly on a 152 20 years or so ago - I was fortunate enough to be awarded an RAF flying scholarship through the CCF at school, but marginal eyesight kept me from going on to apply for a commission.
I do regret that I (or actually, my parents, since I was still at school at the time) couldn't raise the cash required to do the other 10 hours required to qualify for a PPL
I do regret that I (or actually, my parents, since I was still at school at the time) couldn't raise the cash required to do the other 10 hours required to qualify for a PPL
Occasionally punt around in the WLAC "Veyron Race" 182 - although the last time we took it any distance the required amount of Ginters Pies, sarnies, crisps and assorted snacks to keep the crew functioning put a healthy margin on the fuel burn....
The British Aerobatic Association have a single-type trophy for the Aerobat...
http://www.aerobatics.org.uk/trophy_histories/cess...
...but for the past couple of years there have been no takers - I saw Trevor Bailey heroically punting around the Standard Known at Sleap in 2006, and I reckon he must have lost about 3 kilos in sweat manhandling the Shedobat around the box.
The British Aerobatic Association have a single-type trophy for the Aerobat...
http://www.aerobatics.org.uk/trophy_histories/cess...
...but for the past couple of years there have been no takers - I saw Trevor Bailey heroically punting around the Standard Known at Sleap in 2006, and I reckon he must have lost about 3 kilos in sweat manhandling the Shedobat around the box.
eharding said:
IforB said:
I've spent a wee bit of time in Cessna products over the years. I'm still getting counselling.
I did get a trip in the back of a CJ1+ a couple of years ago - very nice. I could get used to that - as a means of transport. Sod all good for aeros though. I've had a go in a CJ2, it wasn't too bad, if a little gutless. Mind you it was 38 degrees and it was heavy, so I probably expected a bit much...
el stovey said:
Have you got it to go backwards yet? I love those 15(2) s
I landed one in a 45 knot headwind and actually was going backwards at about half a knot when it touched down! I had to hold it on the brakes so as not to take the threshold lights out! 
One of the most fun planes I have flown, and also one of the first. I did my RAF scholarship in them! It was hillarious fun, we were too young to understand just how stuid some of the stuff we did in them was!!
Hmmmm... Cessnas..... Driven a few a while back.
C150: 100 hp version a new dimension in lack of performance. 40 degree flap go-arounds were comically entertaining. First flying school I worked for made me fly an ancient 60s straight-fin version that was older than I was. G-BTIN RIP. Thank feck... RR-Continental engined 130 hp Aerobat version had useful performance increase.
C152: Decent enough as a civilian basic trainer. Aerobat version almost capable of basic aeros if viewed as a space-shuttle energy management exercise i.e. it'll loop and roll, but you'll be going downhill throughout. Engine goes quiet if you go inverted.
C172: My least favourite aircraft type of all time. Where do I start? Side-splittingly underpowered, useless fixed-pitch prop, the control feel of a semi-submersible oil platform, the climb rate of a Stannah stairlift and the cockpit build-quality of a Walker's crisp. I. Hate. Them.
C182: See 172, but faster, with foldy gear and a proper engine and prop. Not bad for going places.
C310: Quite a beasty twin. Looks pointy, tip-tanks, sounds great, 285 hp per side. Good for low-level hooliganism. Allegedly.
C525 CJ: Fisher Price My First Jet. As Ifor mentioned, it struggles a bit at FL 400, and takes a country or two to accelerate up to cruise from top-of-climb. It also looks a bit, errr, petit when parked next to the Gulfstream Vs and Challengers on the pan in Cannes. But it was great fun, and I was eternally grateful for my first (and so far only) jet job.
Anybody going to get started on Pipers?????
C150: 100 hp version a new dimension in lack of performance. 40 degree flap go-arounds were comically entertaining. First flying school I worked for made me fly an ancient 60s straight-fin version that was older than I was. G-BTIN RIP. Thank feck... RR-Continental engined 130 hp Aerobat version had useful performance increase.
C152: Decent enough as a civilian basic trainer. Aerobat version almost capable of basic aeros if viewed as a space-shuttle energy management exercise i.e. it'll loop and roll, but you'll be going downhill throughout. Engine goes quiet if you go inverted.
C172: My least favourite aircraft type of all time. Where do I start? Side-splittingly underpowered, useless fixed-pitch prop, the control feel of a semi-submersible oil platform, the climb rate of a Stannah stairlift and the cockpit build-quality of a Walker's crisp. I. Hate. Them.
C182: See 172, but faster, with foldy gear and a proper engine and prop. Not bad for going places.
C310: Quite a beasty twin. Looks pointy, tip-tanks, sounds great, 285 hp per side. Good for low-level hooliganism. Allegedly.
C525 CJ: Fisher Price My First Jet. As Ifor mentioned, it struggles a bit at FL 400, and takes a country or two to accelerate up to cruise from top-of-climb. It also looks a bit, errr, petit when parked next to the Gulfstream Vs and Challengers on the pan in Cannes. But it was great fun, and I was eternally grateful for my first (and so far only) jet job.
Anybody going to get started on Pipers?????
speedtwelve said:
Hmmmm... Cessnas..... Driven a few a while back.
C150: 100 hp version a new dimension in lack of performance. 40 degree flap go-arounds were comically entertaining. First flying school I worked for made me fly an ancient 60s straight-fin version that was older than I was. G-BTIN RIP. Thank feck... RR-Continental engined 130 hp Aerobat version had useful performance increase.
C152: Decent enough as a civilian basic trainer. Aerobat version almost capable of basic aeros if viewed as a space-shuttle energy management exercise i.e. it'll loop and roll, but you'll be going downhill throughout. Engine goes quiet if you go inverted.
C172: My least favourite aircraft type of all time. Where do I start? Side-splittingly underpowered, useless fixed-pitch prop, the control feel of a semi-submersible oil platform, the climb rate of a Stannah stairlift and the cockpit build-quality of a Walker's crisp. I. Hate. Them.
C182: See 172, but faster, with foldy gear and a proper engine and prop. Not bad for going places.
C310: Quite a beasty twin. Looks pointy, tip-tanks, sounds great, 285 hp per side. Good for low-level hooliganism. Allegedly.
C525 CJ: Fisher Price My First Jet. As Ifor mentioned, it struggles a bit at FL 400, and takes a country or two to accelerate up to cruise from top-of-climb. It also looks a bit, errr, petit when parked next to the Gulfstream Vs and Challengers on the pan in Cannes. But it was great fun, and I was eternally grateful for my first (and so far only) jet job.
Anybody going to get started on Pipers?????
Did you ever have a go in our 172 XP? (Before she got broken.) That was still sC150: 100 hp version a new dimension in lack of performance. 40 degree flap go-arounds were comically entertaining. First flying school I worked for made me fly an ancient 60s straight-fin version that was older than I was. G-BTIN RIP. Thank feck... RR-Continental engined 130 hp Aerobat version had useful performance increase.
C152: Decent enough as a civilian basic trainer. Aerobat version almost capable of basic aeros if viewed as a space-shuttle energy management exercise i.e. it'll loop and roll, but you'll be going downhill throughout. Engine goes quiet if you go inverted.
C172: My least favourite aircraft type of all time. Where do I start? Side-splittingly underpowered, useless fixed-pitch prop, the control feel of a semi-submersible oil platform, the climb rate of a Stannah stairlift and the cockpit build-quality of a Walker's crisp. I. Hate. Them.
C182: See 172, but faster, with foldy gear and a proper engine and prop. Not bad for going places.
C310: Quite a beasty twin. Looks pointy, tip-tanks, sounds great, 285 hp per side. Good for low-level hooliganism. Allegedly.
C525 CJ: Fisher Price My First Jet. As Ifor mentioned, it struggles a bit at FL 400, and takes a country or two to accelerate up to cruise from top-of-climb. It also looks a bit, errr, petit when parked next to the Gulfstream Vs and Challengers on the pan in Cannes. But it was great fun, and I was eternally grateful for my first (and so far only) jet job.
Anybody going to get started on Pipers?????
te, but almost acceptable. At least it had a wobbly prop and a few more horses.I can't ever imagine you indulging in airborne high-jinks... I certainly don't ever remember looking out of the side of that horrid PA28 on a maintenance trip to Dundee and seeing your wingtip welded onto mine...
Getting started on Pipers... There aren't enough words in the dictionary to express my contempt and hatred for the old Piper Traumahawk.
Don't try and chase a jet, stay where you are. I'd bloody love your job.
Didn't manage a go in the 172 XP, Ifor, I must have left before that appeared on the scene.
Yes, the Piper Traumaheap. A certain example with which we are both familiar, aka 'The Jaccuzi': Had moss growing on the permanently sodden carpets, and an overhead gap in the doors big enough to put your fingers through in flight. And the handling! Ohhhhh.......the handling. I demonstrated an emergency break to a PPL once, which went roll, centralise, pull, flick the opposite way, recover from the inverted. I reckon one wing on that a/c was rigged about 4 degrees different to the other one. No warning, no buffet, just unplanned departure.
I reckon Piper's design team must have been ripped to the tits on drink and hallucinogenic drugs at the time they did the Tomahawk. Didn't the Norwegians refuse to certify it on the grounds that it had an unacceptably dodgy spin characteristic or something?
Yes, the Piper Traumaheap. A certain example with which we are both familiar, aka 'The Jaccuzi': Had moss growing on the permanently sodden carpets, and an overhead gap in the doors big enough to put your fingers through in flight. And the handling! Ohhhhh.......the handling. I demonstrated an emergency break to a PPL once, which went roll, centralise, pull, flick the opposite way, recover from the inverted. I reckon one wing on that a/c was rigged about 4 degrees different to the other one. No warning, no buffet, just unplanned departure.
I reckon Piper's design team must have been ripped to the tits on drink and hallucinogenic drugs at the time they did the Tomahawk. Didn't the Norwegians refuse to certify it on the grounds that it had an unacceptably dodgy spin characteristic or something?
I heard that rumour about certification, I haven't got a clue if it's true though. It certainly needs the stall strips.
Horrid, horrid thing. When you did spin it, it always took longer to get out of the spin than you would expect. I always thought that the FAA wanted anything they certified to come out after no more than one turn after recovery was initiated, I always found it went around 1.5 or twice more. The movement of the tail used to scare the crap out of me too. The only good thing about it was that there was a bit more space compared to the Cessnas, but as a flying machine it was awful.
They always seemed as if they were rigged wrong, but when Allan's went in and had to have a new set of wings after they found corrosion, it was rerigged and it was still awful, even though it was done properly. Shocking machines.
The 172XP was with LE at CBN. It was actually pretty nice, even if it still handled like a shopping trolley, it was more like a 206 than a bog standard 172 with it's nice big 6 cylinder engine. It sounded good too, though it was a bit nose heavy. (Which turned out to be the reason for it's demise, as a PPL dumped it onto its nose at Plockton and bent it. The Muppet.)
Horrid, horrid thing. When you did spin it, it always took longer to get out of the spin than you would expect. I always thought that the FAA wanted anything they certified to come out after no more than one turn after recovery was initiated, I always found it went around 1.5 or twice more. The movement of the tail used to scare the crap out of me too. The only good thing about it was that there was a bit more space compared to the Cessnas, but as a flying machine it was awful.
They always seemed as if they were rigged wrong, but when Allan's went in and had to have a new set of wings after they found corrosion, it was rerigged and it was still awful, even though it was done properly. Shocking machines.
The 172XP was with LE at CBN. It was actually pretty nice, even if it still handled like a shopping trolley, it was more like a 206 than a bog standard 172 with it's nice big 6 cylinder engine. It sounded good too, though it was a bit nose heavy. (Which turned out to be the reason for it's demise, as a PPL dumped it onto its nose at Plockton and bent it. The Muppet.)
speedtwelve said:
Didn't manage a go in the 172 XP, Ifor, I must have left before that appeared on the scene.
Yes, the Piper Traumaheap. A certain example with which we are both familiar, aka 'The Jaccuzi': Had moss growing on the permanently sodden carpets, and an overhead gap in the doors big enough to put your fingers through in flight. And the handling! Ohhhhh.......the handling. I demonstrated an emergency break to a PPL once, which went roll, centralise, pull, flick the opposite way, recover from the inverted. I reckon one wing on that a/c was rigged about 4 degrees different to the other one. No warning, no buffet, just unplanned departure.
I reckon Piper's design team must have been ripped to the tits on drink and hallucinogenic drugs at the time they did the Tomahawk. Didn't the Norwegians refuse to certify it on the grounds that it had an unacceptably dodgy spin characteristic or something?
Yes, the Piper Traumaheap. A certain example with which we are both familiar, aka 'The Jaccuzi': Had moss growing on the permanently sodden carpets, and an overhead gap in the doors big enough to put your fingers through in flight. And the handling! Ohhhhh.......the handling. I demonstrated an emergency break to a PPL once, which went roll, centralise, pull, flick the opposite way, recover from the inverted. I reckon one wing on that a/c was rigged about 4 degrees different to the other one. No warning, no buffet, just unplanned departure.
I reckon Piper's design team must have been ripped to the tits on drink and hallucinogenic drugs at the time they did the Tomahawk. Didn't the Norwegians refuse to certify it on the grounds that it had an unacceptably dodgy spin characteristic or something?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff